Evolution is misunderstood by millions. And, it has to be said, a lot of the time, this problem isn't helped by the way things are reported on the TV or in the news.

These are the 5 most common terms that, when I hear them used, I die a little. Though their effect is subtle, all of these terms perpetrate common myths about the way evolution works. The sooner they become extinct, the better!

1. Survival of the FittestNow, this term is something that often gets used synonymously with natural selection. In fact, it wasn't actually coined by Darwin himself; it was first used by Herbert Spencer, though Darwin later came to use it extensively.

The problem with the phrase "survival of the fittest", in my view, is that it rather misrepresents the way that selection really works. This is because it isn't really the survival of the fittest organism that drives evolution. It's the death of the least fit organism.

I can see how "survival of the fittest" appealed to victorian sensibilities! Instead of implying a brutal, red-in-tooth-and-claw vision of nature, it implies a striving towards self improvement. Which is, it has to be said, appealing. Unfortunately, it's neither borne out by theory nor facts....

I believe in any study of a concept you really have to work hard to understand the subject before you have any chance to comment on the subject.

It seems in our fast paced world today, many assume they know the subject matter whatever it may be (this assumes no formal study in the subject just a cursory brush with the subject and usually told from others not knowledgeable themselves in the subject), based on their own intrinsic views and knowledge base and leave it at that.

When pressed though, in a real discussion where you are graded on whether you understand the subject matter or not, many people are surprised how little they really did not know about the subject.

Evolution, as any body of complex knowledge requires, must include a fair effort to read and research its subject matter to understand it.

Thank goodness for those willing to find this knowledge the Internet offers a wealth of free knowledge if you are careful in sifting through all the data.

Logged

I am not asking what is truth, even though I seek it, I will know when truth is in front of me, when it is internally consistent, coherent with knowledge, congruent with like experience, useful for helping me organize my thinking, this is all I can ask in seeking the truth.

Darwin first used Spencer's new phrase "survival of the fittest" as a synonym for natural selection in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species, published in 1869.[2][3] Darwin meant it as a metaphor for "better adapted for immediate, local environment", not the common inference of "in the best physical shape".[4] Hence, it is not a scientific description.[5]

[...] A more accurate characterization of evolution would be "survival of the fit enough".[7]

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

The term "selection" tends to confuse people as well, because they approach it from the wrong end. There is this assumption that an organism --or even "evolution" itself, as if it was some active force-- deliberately selects traits that will be favorable to its survival, but that's not what natural selection is. Terms like "the organism evolved to fit its environment" is easily construed as an active, conscious approach instead of what it really means.

That kind of confusion is used to strong effect by apologists; it's one of the misunderstandings that kept me from realizing just how firmly established evolutionary theory really was. Well, along with the misunderstanding of the term "theory" in science. That might be the most irritating term of all, in the way that it is used.

That kind of confusion is used to strong effect by apologists; it's one of the misunderstandings that kept me from realizing just how firmly established evolutionary theory really was. Well, along with the misunderstanding of the term "theory" in science. That might be the most irritating term of all, in the way that it is used.

I think it's more concerning that there is a prevalent misunderstanding of 'science' itself. Far too many people seem to think that science is telescopes, multimeters, Erlenmeyer flasks, and lab coats. That is, they conflate the tools that can be brought to bear in scientific experiments with science itself.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

^^^Exactly. Science is a process, a way of doing things systematically and carefully.

People do things scientifically all the time, even though they are not scientists. Whether it is tinkering with a pie crust recipe, or tinkering with a car engine--the solution will be a real world one, not a supernatural one. That is true no matter what the person "believes".

Anytime someone approaches a problem, thinks of a solution, tries it out and then adds what they found out to their knowledge, they are using aspects of the scientific method.

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?